>P. v.
Alvarez













Filed 6/22/12 P. v. Alvarez CA5

















NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS





California
Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or
relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except
as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This
opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for
purposes of rule 8.1115.













IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT




>

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOSE TOBIAS ALVAREZ, JR., Defendant and Appellant.

F063035 (Super. Ct. No. VCF237883) >OPINION

>THE COURT^*

APPEAL
from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare
County. Darryl B. Ferguson, Judge.

Deborah
Prucha, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Office
of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.

>

>-ooOoo-

On June 3,
2011, after the court stated an indicated sentence of five years, appellant,
Jose Tobias Alvarez, Jr., pled no contest to transportation of methamphetamine (Health
& Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a))^[1] and admitted a prior drug offense enhancement
allegation (§ 11370.2, subd. (c)). On
June 29, 2011, the court imposed a five-year prison term, consisting of the
two-year lower term on the substantive offense and three years on the
enhancement. Appellant filed a timely
notice of appeal. Insofar as the record
reveals, he did not request, and the court did not issue, a certificate of
probable cause (Pen. Code, § 1237.5).

Appellant’s appointed appellate
counsel has filed an opening brief
which summarizes the pertinent facts, with citations to the record, raises no
issues, and asks that this court independently review the record. (People
v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d. 436.)
Appellant has not responded to this court’s invitation to submit
additional briefing. We affirm.>

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The Instant Offense

The report of the probation officer
states that according to Tulare County Sheriff’s Department reports, the
following occurred on May 30, 2010. At
approximately 7:09 a.m., deputies executed a stop of a vehicle “with black tint
on both the front driver and passenger windows.” Appellant was the driver. After he indicated he did not have a driver’s
license, registration, or proof of insurance, “Dispatch” advised the deputies
that appellant’s driver’s license had been suspended and that appellant “had an
active warrant .…”

Appellant
was removed from the vehicle. A deputy
conducted a pat-down search and “felt a large bulge in [appellant’s]
pockets.” Appellant stated it was
“money.” It was “removed” and “a clear
baggie was observed between the money that was folded in half.” It was determined the baggie contained 6.8
grams of methamphetamine. A search of
the vehicle produced a glass smoking pipe and two digital scales. Appellant admitted the methamphetamine was
his, but denied ownership of the scales.


Appellant’s Prior Drug Offense Conviction

Appellant
was convicted of a violation of section 11379, subdivision (a) in 2010.

DISCUSSION

Following independent review of the
record, we have concluded that no reasonably arguable legal or factual issues exist.

DISPOSITION

The
judgment is affirmed.